In Re: Terry Silva v., 703 F. App'x 104

In 2016 the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board found Terry Elizabeth Silva violated Professional Conduct rules in a personal-injury matter (failures to communicate, commingling client funds, failure to account, poor recordkeeping, conversion, and dishonesty).
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania suspended Silva from practicing law for three years and Silva notified the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking to contest reciprocal discipline.
A three-judge District Court panel held a hearing, reviewed submissions, and recommended a reciprocal three-year suspension; the District Court adopted that recommendation.
Silva claimed the District Court deprived her of due process by failing to conduct an independent review, misapplying law (federal fee-dispute law and state law on charging liens/co-clients), and relying on an infirm factual record/credibility findings.
The Third Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and for whether the District Court performed an independent review consistent with due process and whether Silva showed by clear and convincing evidence a serious infirmity in the state proceeding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether District Court failed to perform an independent review, violating due process	Silva: District Court did not independently review and apply proper law, depriving due process	District Court: conducted an independent review of the record, exhibits, and hearing testimony	Court rejected Silva; found District Court’s review independent and adequate
Whether federal law on fee disputes should govern or state charging-lien/co-client law was misapplied	Silva: fee arrangement was modified; federal law or state lien/co-client rules should allow withholding settlement for prior fees	Opposing: Silva did not prove modification by clear and convincing evidence	Court held Silva failed to show a contract modification; District Court correctly relied on the state proceeding’s findings
Whether the state factfinder’s credibility findings were infirm (especially client’s son witness)	Silva: key witness lacked credibility and Board failed to make specific supporting findings	Opposing: Board’s credibility determination was sufficient; lack of detailed findings did not prove infirmity	Court held credibility concerns did not amount to infirm proof; no grave injustice shown
Whether reciprocal discipline constituted abuse of discretion	Silva: cumulative errors show abuse of discretion	District Court/Third Circuit: procedures and record support discipline	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion in imposing reciprocal three-year suspension

In re Surrick, 338 F.3d 224 (3d Cir.) (standard for district court review of state disciplinary findings and burden on disciplined attorney)
In re Jacobs, 44 F.3d 84 (2d Cir.) (reciprocal-discipline review requirements)
In re Kramer, 282 F.3d 721 (9th Cir.) (attorney’s burden to show serious infirmity by clear and convincing evidence)